I work in the legal field and I have heard many times that it’s difficult to prosecute these cases, but it’s a different story when it comes with defense attorneys. Defense attorneys always say that it’s nearly impossible to win these kinds of cases. Why is it like that?
In: 0
Unless you got video evidence its kind’ve difficult to prove it with absolute certainty. Someone saying it happened isn’t enough. Even a witness can be discredited if they are a friend of the person who is the victim because they could be in cahoots making up the story.
For guilty to be given, it must be “without doubt”, so even if the testimony is credible but there is lots of room to doubt you still can’t give a guilty verdict.
This makes most sexual crimes very difficult to persecute. They have the lowest rates of prosecution of all crimes. I would argue those accused are barely likely to even to even reach court and if they do often can easily defend it unless hard evidence exists which rarely does.
I don’t know if things are different in your country but thats the case here anyway.
people have sex all the time, so except for the cases involving minors or someone randomly attacked by someone they never meet or talked to before, it quickly becomes; “he said”, “she said” and there are often no other witnesses. So it is hard for the prosecution to prove it was assault and for the defense it is hard to prove it was consensual
If you are accused of a crime, the police can call in a range of powers. They can take DNA samples, check your phone history, interview witnesses and seize evidence.
As just a regular citizen, you don’t stand much of a chance against a team of professional detectives, so the principle is that you are only guilty if the prosecution can prove it “beyond reasonable doubt”. If there’s a chance that you’re not guilty then you’re free. It’s better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent man is jailed.
All this is fine if you’re accused of fraud, or arson. But in the case of something as private and intimate as a sexual encounter, it’s very very difficult to prove he (it’s generally him on her) is 100% guilty.
===
There is another kind of reason where you might end up in court, and that’s for breach of contract. You could bring your car to me for a service, and when you get it back there’s a big scratch on the paintwork. The police won’t get involved, because I haven’t committed a crime, so you would sue me for damages. In the case, you and I are equal, and you only have to show it was my fault on the “balance of probabilities”. If it’s more likely my fault than yours, I pay up.
[removed]
The cases that don’t have good evidence, are dropped and not prosecuted. Hence the cases defence attorneys do see are the cases with more evidence, which means they are going to be harder to defend.
So like what really makes it difficult for defense attorneys then? I’m only really hearing about why it’s difficult for prosecution but barely anything about the defense
Rape is difficult to prosecute because in a case where it’s not some stranger jumping out of the bushes, how do you know if it was consensual or not? Rape is difficult to defend against, because in order to make it easier to prosecute such “he said, she said” cases, where it might be consensual, governments have legislated a number of rules that they claim will help resolve such cases. For example, in Canada, in order to introduce communications between the plaintiff and the defendant, “of a sexual nature”, it must first be run past both the prosecution and the judge. Also known as the Jian Ghomeshi law or “rape shield II”.
Because it’s possible to have sexual contact consensually. Most other crimes, the fact that something has happened is often clear evidence that it happened in a criminal way. You can’t consensually be murdered. It’s extremely unlikely that you’d be consensually beaten bloody or hit by a car. Property crime like theft, it’s a *little* more plausible that you gave them the item them said they stole it, but it’s still not terribly likely. If your things are in their possession and you’re mad about it, someone along the line was probably stealing.
Most sexual assault happens between people who are acquainted with each other in a situation where consensual sexual contact is plausible. So it’s hard to prove that the contact was unwanted. There are a lot of flaws in the legal system about how sexual assault is prosecuted, but admittedly, it’s really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in today’s world where the average person is not super educated about what constitutes sexual assault.
It’s why we have age of consent laws and the concept of statutory rape. To prevent underage victims from claiming it was consensual due to being coached or groomed, it simply is not considered possible for people under a certain age to consent in certain circumstances, so it’s *always* nonconsensual in the eyes of the law to have contact with someone under a certain age.
I’ve seen a lot of really accurate posts here but want to point out the political aspect of it as well. Lawyers don’t like to admit it, but they’re political. They’re not politicians, but they’re political tools. 99% of the time, they’re unwilling political tools… I think nonconsenting is a more appropriate term.
Any sexual assault case that can be twisted into a political narrative makes a lawyers’ job 1000 times harder – often on both sides. Which makes the entire case cost more as well (many lawyers will eat this cost for both selfish and not selfish reasons in this circumstance).
Courts are also often nonconsenting political tools so it makes it that much harder on the courts as well nexus any attention on the case requires more judge discretion and jury monitoring. This is why courts are very strict on many court details until after trial.
Pretty much any time a case gets public attention, it makes everything harder and with the Me Too movement (not disparaging) and other movements like it, a bunch of fake information gets spread around. Even though the trial is often entitling public information, nobody bothers reading the actual court findings, so court and lawyer reputations are on the line. Since journalists have no real obligations to fair and accurate journalism, and most peopledo not understand how evidence or risks work, it makes the problem much worse for everyone: victims, lawyers, and courts.
Keep in mind that people think hear-say and circumstantial evidence are never allowed in court thanks to TV.
So, people, if you’re being assaulted, resist just enough to get them to leave evidence (torn clothes, bruises, scratches, etc) and get to a hospital immediately afterward so police and hospitals can have immediate, controlled evidence for prosecution. District Attorneys love to win SA cases because it helps with reelection and the best way you can get them to prosecute is to have unquestionable evidence. Police also absolutely love to apprehend SA suspects for evidence collection. Literally all the powers will be on your side if you can get them the evidence they need for a win. And it’s even better for them if it’s somebody of power.
Because it’s possible to have sexual contact consensually. Most other crimes, the fact that something has happened is often clear evidence that it happened in a criminal way. You can’t consensually be murdered. It’s extremely unlikely that you’d be consensually beaten bloody or hit by a car. Property crime like theft, it’s a *little* more plausible that you gave them the item them said they stole it, but it’s still not terribly likely. If your things are in their possession and you’re mad about it, someone along the line was probably stealing.
Most sexual assault happens between people who are acquainted with each other in a situation where consensual sexual contact is plausible. So it’s hard to prove that the contact was unwanted. There are a lot of flaws in the legal system about how sexual assault is prosecuted, but admittedly, it’s really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in today’s world where the average person is not super educated about what constitutes sexual assault.
It’s why we have age of consent laws and the concept of statutory rape. To prevent underage victims from claiming it was consensual due to being coached or groomed, it simply is not considered possible for people under a certain age to consent in certain circumstances, so it’s *always* nonconsensual in the eyes of the law to have contact with someone under a certain age.
Latest Answers